The Myth of the Modern Homosexual: Queer History and the Search for Cultural Unity

by Rictor Noton

With careful reasoning supported by wide-ranging scholarship, cultural historian Rictor Norton exposes the fallacies of "social constructionist" theories that currently dominate lesbian and gay studies, and argues the case for the autonomy of queer identities and culture. Addressing the general (queer) reader in clear jargon-free terms, the author unashamedly sites himself within the "essentialist" camp, and presents the evidence that queers are part of a centuries old history, possessing a unified historical cultural identity.Norton reviews the fundamental historiographical issues about the nature of queer history, arguing that a new generation of queer historians will need to abandon authoritarian dogma founded upon politically correct ideology rather than historical experience. The author argues that queer culture - with its ethic customs and traditions - is the proper subject of queer history, rather than the usual emphasis upon homophobia which little more than a history of heterosexual prejudice. He examines how queer identity has been formed by a sense of historical context as well as a sense of sexual orientation, and re-evaluates the contribution made by culturally identified queers to the recovery of queer history. He offers a clear exposition of the evidence or ancient, indigenous and pre-modern queer cultural continuity, revealing how knowledge of that history has been suppressed and censored. The author sets forth the "queer cultural essentialist" position on the key topics of queer history - role, identity, bisexuality, orientation, linguistics, social control, homophobia, subcultures, kinship patterns - and redraws the battle lines for future debate.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, LGBT, Queer, Gay

Paperback

First published October 1, 1997

Reviews

[fausto · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think that the best part of the book is Norton’s obvious love and pride for gay culture and identity. Unlike the title of the book, I did not see it primarily as a “debunk” of social constructionist theories of homosexuality, the first part of the book is about that, but part two and three of the books have a more profound and beautiful subject and is Norton’s proposition of look for gay history as a folk history, that is, to look for cultural artifacts, institutions and symbols in order to understand ethnic cultural gay identities, gay folklore.

I think Norton actually has a major point in his criticism of the overlooked construction of homophobic discourses on gay history. I particularly dislike his use of “queer” as an umbrella term for both lesbians and gay men, as for “third sex/gender” traditions around the world, in general I consider that queer is a very useless term for historical research, for its tendency to hoard cultural differences and pass them as “deconstructed”. Norton’s huge amount of information and expertice on (male) gay cultural history is particularly useful in order to support his main thesis.

My main criticism with the book is the author’s approach to lesbian herstory. Is clear that Norton is not very fond to both gay liberation and lesbian feminism, not because he is a conservative (he is not) but for their ideological differences (constructionism vs determinism). I think that Norton is very enthusiastic to rest in some particular interpretations of 17th and 18th lesbian material, which mostly shows the “idea” of a lesbian community, and not their real existance, of course, lesbian clubs and network has been documented from at least the 17th, but a more rigorous approach shows that a lesbian subculture (parallel to gay subculture who existed far far before) only appear in the late 19th in German-speaking countries. The reasons for this are obvious for feminist scholars: economical gender gap, legal male dependency, vanish from university education and mostly: impossible economical resources and jobs who offers women any kind of possibility for living by their own. Only the appearance of the first wave of feminism and the rise of the new woman could give (middle-class) women the opportunity to develop a culture by their own (antecedents of course existed, but their differences are patent). Finally, I think he over-simplifies the importance of lesbian-feminism in order to create a more public lesbian culture in the 70-90s.

In general, I think this is an excellent book, unlucky is kinda difficult and expensive to find (at least outside England) but if you have the opportunity is a very empower book for gay people, and I hope Norton’s proposition for gay folk history would be taken more seriously in the future!

[Aidan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a mixed feeling about this one. In some respects it's very good, in others, not quite. For example, the author is absolutely correct to dismiss social constructionist arguments on homosexuality the way he does. I wholly agree with him, and he exhibits a very healthy mind on that. He argues forcefully that homosexuality has existed throughout ages and human history, and that it's not something that was invented by some development in our modern times.

However, he can become repetitive toward the second half of the book, and doesn't quite retain coherent focus on what he's writing. I also don't sympathize with his apparent enthusiasm for the camp culture and the wish to revive it. I think that, though some things are part of an aspect of gay culture in history, it does not mean they should be held on to for that alone. We evolve and move on, and some things are better left behind. The camp and the drag shows being two of them.

I also passionately disagree with his bias for using the word 'queer' to denote a homosexual man (or, equally, his spelled aversion for the term 'homosexual). It's never felt right for me, and it does not go a long way to render the text sympathetic.

What started out with a lot of promise and every indication of being a tour de force on the topic, disintegrated down the path for me. It's not a bad work. It's worth a read, and it definitely has its merits, especially when it comes to overthrowing social constructionist viewpoints. I do recommend it for gay readers. But it could have been a lot better.

[Kay Perkins · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF. Norton's central argument is correct and focusing on a few well-chosen examples of obviously queer-identified people throughout history would have been very effective.

Instead, he goes for quantity over quality and jumps from case study to case study in a very disorganized fashion, providing no evidence to back up most of his claims. At times he even directly contradicts himself and seems to prove his opponents right. The whole thing is a rambly mess.

He also dismisses any possibility that cross-dressers throughout history may have genuinely identified as genderqueer, which in 2025 reads very transphobic.

[T · Rating 5 out of 5]

Relevant